Patriarchy? Go East young man!

[Sculptor]

@iambiguous

Actually, for those who do think like the men in these accounts do they really do need to subscribe to the New York Times.

Waste of money.
If I was going to pay for news from the Big Apple I’d chose the NewYorker.

As it is I find 99% of news media so biased as to be completely useless opinionated BS.

[Sculptor]

@MagsJ

_
The unfeminisation of man…?

@iambiguous

nytimes.com/2022/01/01/worl … nists.html

The New Political Cry in South Korea: ‘Out With Man Haters’

After slow gains in women’s rights, the country is facing a type of political correctness enforced by young men angry at feminists, saying they undermine opportunity.

nytimes.com/2021/12/31/opin … inity.html

China’s Ban on ‘Sissy Men’ Is Bound to Backfire

BEIJING — China is facing serious challenges on multiple fronts: Great power competition with the United States. Trade disputes. The future of Taiwan. But that doesn’t mean it’s too preoccupied to escalate a battle of another sort on the home front.

The Chinese government, you see, has been fighting what state news outlets have called a “masculinity crisis” for the past few years, with one top official warning that “effeminate” men in popular culture were corrupting “a generation.” The Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece decreed that young men need to have “toughness and strength,” and censors have blurred out male celebrities’ earrings in television and online appearances.

That campaign has now taken a harsher turn. In recent months, the government has dialed things up into a full-blown culture war against unorthodox masculine expression, policing it in earnest.

In a slur-laden directive, television regulators in September banned “sissy men and other abnormal aesthetics” from appearing on television. Then in late November regulators cracked down on celebrities’ online profiles, their fan groups and advertising, citing “abnormal aesthetics” and threatening to shut down the online accounts of those who failed to fall in line.

There are plenty in the US, actually there are plenty on this Forum who would like this to happen throughout the West.
Giant strides have been made in the West but it is also going backwards to the 1950s as some states repeal same sex marriage law.
Why can’t some people just let others be themselves?

[iambiguous]

@MagsJ

Feminism… like any other social movement, centres around fairness and transparency for that particular social demographic. It’s about seamlessly integrating such movements into every day existence… the old way of doing things then becoming obsolete.

@iambiguous

Then back to how you react to and judge particular instances of this from the perspective of your own more or less objective “intrinsic self”; and me from my own more or less subjective “fractured and fragmented” self.

@MagsJ

Why do you feel that you need to be subjectively involved, when considering your stance on societal matters?

Can you not consider such matters without having to implicate your own feelings in the mix? after-all, you’re not the one having an abortion… requiring woman’s rights… etc. etc…

Perhaps you are just wired that way?

We are all hard wired to be “social animals”. It’s just that in particular contexts the question of gender roles comes up and we react to it. My point is that you seem to react to them given your own “intrinsic self”, while I have nothing like this that “I” am aware of and, instead, respond in a more “fractured and fragmented” manner. Given my understanding of value judgments of this sort being predicated largely on dasein.

@MagsJ

…a global ‘hive mind’ of shared morals and actuality?

Yes, for the objectivists among us. Then when they acquire power, you damn well better toe their line. Especially in the “right makes might” communities.

@MagsJ

I always say… you get what/who you vote for, so perhaps voters should start voting more wisely and think before they vote… if votes count at all in some parts of the world, that is.

Then [for me] back again to voting wisely based on having an “intrinsic self” to guide you, or not having one. Being, instead, drawn and quartered given reasonable arguments that can be made from many sides in regard to gender roles.

Same with this…

@MagsJ

Clamping down on unrealistic body-image (re. the OP) is nothing new, and such body idealism is usually achieved by drastic unnatural means that are usually harmful to both physical and mental health, and has led to suicides or directly caused deaths.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but imitating photoshopped filtered elongated thinned-out images, of Idols… is quite the feat, no? Your average person who uses those methods is deemed a catfish and ostracised.

You have your political prejudices here, others have theirs. Are they rooted more in dasein or in a frame of mind that philosophers [among others] can pin down as the most reasonable way to think about these things?

Again, that’s the beauty of the “intrinsic self” approach to feminism. To government policy. To abortion. However it works, you “just know” how it ought to work. And no one can tell you otherwise because there’s no effective rebuttal against what another claims to “just know” intrinsically.

@MagsJ

It’s not about being told otherwise… should another’s opinion matter to you, on something that is not personally affecting you? so in that instance, there is no place for someone like me to argue from… but I can effect fairer outcomes, for those who are personally affected by the dilemma of whether to abort or not.

Of course it’s about what others tell you they believe about these things. If the whole point is to arrive at “fairer outcomes” you have to hear each other out and decide what “for all practical purposes” that is. You have your “intrinsic self” to fall back on. I don’t. Then those who have only their “objectivist self” to fall back on. You either construe “fair” here as they do or you are “one of them”…the irrational, immoral enemy.

@MagsJ

I am not the one that is disturbed by circumstance, you are…

Of course you’re not. No matter the circumstances you just tap your “intrinsic self” on the shoulder in order to “just know” what to make of them. From the perspective of a more fractured and fragmented sense of self, however, circumstances are ever rooted in the political prejudices emanating from a particular individual’s personal experiences.

@MagsJ

We are our experiences… ever heard of that? I am mine, Maia is her’s, and you are your’s… you have obviously had more/varied experiences than us, and obviously in different environments.

I would say that your past is haunting you, but you may want to disagree with that.

Yes, but the experiences that we all have can be different in any number of extraordinary ways. That’s my point. Because we experience things in regard to our encounters with gender roles and abortion in very different ways we come to think about them in very different ways. You have come to conclude that in accumulating all of your own unique experiences here you have come to attain this “intrinsic” reaction to human interactions in the world around us. Whereas I have come to recognize that my own reaction to human relationships is derived more from the fact that “I” have experienced things in ways that others cannot really even begin to fathom. That and the manner in which I note that those on all of the many different “sides” pertaining to gender roles and abortion are able to construct rational arguments in a world bursting with “conflicting goods”.

For me, it’s not a question of our past haunting us but of it being what it was and as such having a profound impact on how we construe the present differently.

Thus [from my frame of mind]…

@iambiguous

@MagsJ

Do you not like others thinking for themselves?

There are all different kinds of minds out there, you know…

Different minds emanating from what can be very different lives. But if you are convinced that you “think for yourself” as a result of this “inner you” ever and always guiding you, how likely is it that you will examine this from my own perspective? And why on earth would you? After all, it’s the “intrinsic self” able to transcend contingency, chance and change in order to sustain your own comforting and consoling certainty about feminism and other things that allows you to ground I in that which does soothe you. Then around and around you go.

Then the part I still don’t really have a clue regarding…how God and religion fits into all of this for you.

@MagsJ

You think that this way of thinking is about soothing and consoling the self, but it’s about moving forward on decision-making and life itself… religion has nothing to do with it, though morality has, and morality is not necessarily dependent on religion.

Okay, more of a No God morality. But you are able to “move forward” in regard to such things as gender roles and abortion whereas “I” am not. Why? Because, from my own frame of mind, you have access to this “intrinsic self” that allows you to at least imagine that there is a bullseye – a “golden mean” – to aim for. But: there is no “best of all possible worlds” for me…only a slew of moral and political prejudices out there all claiming that the bullseye is the one on their own moral and political “dartboard”.

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

@iambiguous

@MagsJ

Feminism… like any other social movement, centres around fairness and transparency for that particular social demographic. It’s about seamlessly integrating such movements into every day existence… the old way of doing things then becoming obsolete.

@iambiguous

Then back to how you react to and judge particular instances of this from the perspective of your own more or less objective “intrinsic self”; and me from my own more or less subjective “fractured and fragmented” self.

@MagsJ

Why do you feel that you need to be subjectively involved, when considering your stance on societal matters?

Can you not consider such matters without having to implicate your own feelings in the mix? after-all, you’re not the one having an abortion… requiring woman’s rights… etc. etc…

Perhaps you are just wired that way?

We are all hard wired to be “social animals”. It’s just that in particular contexts the question of gender roles comes up and we react to it. My point is that you seem to react to them given your own “intrinsic self”, while I have nothing like this that “I” am aware of and, instead, respond in a more “fractured and fragmented” manner. Given my understanding of value judgments of this sort being predicated largely on dasein.

That is you’re intrinsic way, no…? only more input is required to be factored in, to derive your output/final decision(s)/judgement call… though it does now seem less for you, these days.

Dasein… by any other name, would still be present/exist.

@iambiguous

@MagsJ

…a global ‘hive mind’ of shared morals and actuality?

@iambiguous

Yes, for the objectivists among us. Then when they acquire power, you damn well better toe their line. Especially in the “right makes might” communities.

@MagsJ

I always say… you get what/who you vote for, so perhaps voters should start voting more wisely and think before they vote… if votes count at all in some parts of the world, that is.

Then [for me] back again to voting wisely based on having an “intrinsic self” to guide you, or not having one. Being, instead, drawn and quartered given reasonable arguments that can be made from many sides in regard to gender roles.

I see… yes, I factor a lot less in when creating my decision-making mindset on matters… compared to you, but… then again, I am a holist.

Perhaps pride/ego etc., are the blinkers that the patriarchy wear that hinders them, with less objectivity… Eastern, or otherwise.

@iambiguous

Same with this…

@MagsJ

Clamping down on unrealistic body-image (re. the OP) is nothing new, and such body idealism is usually achieved by drastic unnatural means that are usually harmful to both physical and mental health, and has led to suicides or directly caused deaths.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but imitating photoshopped filtered elongated thinned-out images, of Idols… is quite the feat, no? Your average person who uses those methods is deemed a catfish and ostracised.

You have your political prejudices here, others have theirs. Are they rooted more in dasein or in a frame of mind that philosophers [among others] can pin down as the most reasonable way to think about these things?

What you call political prejudices, I see as common sense… so, are those with political prejudices fit to lead (by what example exactly)?

A case of standing for nothing by standing for everything, ergo… lacking integrity.

@iambiguous

@iambiguous

Same with this…

Again, that’s the beauty of the “intrinsic self” approach to feminism. To government policy. To abortion. However it works, you “just know” how it ought to work. And no one can tell you otherwise because there’s no effective rebuttal against what another claims to “just know” intrinsically.

@MagsJ

It’s not about being told otherwise… should another’s opinion matter to you, on something that is not personally affecting you? so in that instance, there is no place for someone like me to argue from… but I can effect fairer outcomes, for those who are personally affected by the dilemma of whether to abort or not.

Of course it’s about what others tell you they believe about these things. If the whole point is to arrive at “fairer outcomes” you have to hear each other out and decide what “for all practical purposes” that is. You have your “intrinsic self” to fall back on. I don’t. Then those who have only their “objectivist self” to fall back on. You either construe “fair” here as they do or you are “one of them”…the irrational, immoral enemy.

My above reply is equally fitting here, in that those with political prejudices not making the most ideal governors.

Again… a case of voters getting what/whom they voted for.

@iambiguous

@MagsJ

I am not the one that is disturbed by circumstance, you are…

@iambiguous

Of course you’re not. No matter the circumstances you just tap your “intrinsic self” on the shoulder in order to “just know” what to make of them. From the perspective of a more fractured and fragmented sense of self, however, circumstances are ever rooted in the political prejudices emanating from a particular individual’s personal experiences.

@MagsJ

We are our experiences… ever heard of that? I am mine, Maia is her’s, and you are your’s… you have obviously had more/varied experiences than us, and obviously in different environments.

I would say that your past is haunting you, but you may want to disagree with that.

Yes, but the experiences that we all have can be different in any number of extraordinary ways. That’s my point. Because we experience things in regard to our encounters with gender roles and abortion in very different ways we come to think about them in very different ways. You have come to conclude that in accumulating all of your own unique experiences here you have come to attain this “intrinsic” reaction to human interactions in the world around us. Whereas I have come to recognize that my own reaction to human relationships is derived more from the fact that “I” have experienced things in ways that others cannot really even begin to fathom. That and the manner in which I note that those on all of the many different “sides” pertaining to gender roles and abortion are able to construct rational arguments in a world bursting with “conflicting goods”.

For me, it’s not a question of our past haunting us but of it being what it was and as such having a profound impact on how we construe the present differently.

That ^^^ is the definition of haunting.

Spare the (proverbial) rod, spoil the masses/society… leading to a quick decline in morality.

@iambiguous

Thus [from my frame of mind]…

@iambiguous

@MagsJ

Do you not like others thinking for themselves?

There are all different kinds of minds out there, you know…

@iambiguous

Different minds emanating from what can be very different lives. But if you are convinced that you “think for yourself” as a result of this “inner you” ever and always guiding you, how likely is it that you will examine this from my own perspective? And why on earth would you? After all, it’s the “intrinsic self” able to transcend contingency, chance and change in order to sustain your own comforting and consoling certainty about feminism and other things that allows you to ground I in that which does soothe you. Then around and around you go.

Then the part I still don’t really have a clue regarding…how God and religion fits into all of this for you.

@MagsJ

You think that this way of thinking is about soothing and consoling the self, but it’s about moving forward on decision-making and life itself… religion has nothing to do with it, though morality has, and morality is not necessarily dependent on religion.

Okay, more of a No God morality. But you are able to “move forward” in regard to such things as gender roles and abortion whereas “I” am not. Why? Because, from my own frame of mind, you have access to this “intrinsic self” that allows you to at least imagine that there is a bullseye – a “golden mean” – to aim for. But: there is no “best of all possible worlds” for me…only a slew of moral and political prejudices out there all claiming that the bullseye is the one on their own moral and political “dartboard”.

Have you heard of something called ‘mass consensus’ and ‘data collection’? It kinda resolves the issue you query above.